pakistan’s

etter-informed strategies and policies toward Pakistan in the long term. The project’s analyses
and briefings aim to expose policymakers to the intricacies of Pakistan’s internal dynamics; help
dispel preconceived notions of simplistic rivalries between well-meaning democrats in Islamabad,
Islamist extremists in FATA, and officials in the security services playing both sides; and draw
attention to the links between those internal dynamics and Pakistan’s external geopolitical
environment. By exposing policymakers to the important regional, cultural, economic, and
ideational rits that roil throughout Pakistan, the project hopes to facilitate more nuanced and
effective policy decisions.
Phase One
The project was organized into two phases. The first phase focused on developing a deeper
understanding of the complex sociopolitical landscape influencing internal dynamics and
state stability in Pakistan by mapping the diverse sociological, political, cultural, and religious
influences shaping Pakistan’s political and security environment—at not just the federal state
level but also the local regional level. The goal of this effort was to help shed light on the regional
variations in Pakistan’s state and nonstate power structures and contribute to a more nuanced
understanding of the internal fault lines shaping the country’s future trajectory. This phase of
the project explored three specific dimensions of Pakistan’s internal sociopolitical landscape:
the political superstructure, internal security environment, and informal agencies of influence
on Pakistan’s internal stability. Despite the daunting challenges inherent in such a task, the first
three essays in this report by Mumtaz Ahmad, C. Christine Fair, and Matthew J. Nelson provide
a masterful overview of internal trends in Pakistan today. These essays offer fascinating insights
into little-explored facets of Pakistani society while highlighting the difficulties intrinsic in any
attempt to understand the country.
Ahmad’s essay provides a comprehensive overview of the principal institutions composing
Pakistan’s political superstructure, along with a discussion of both center-provincial dynamics
and civil-military relations. The essay asserts that Pakistan’s “superstructures” of the military and
civil bureaucracy have played a pivotal role in ensuring state stability through numerous political
crises, despite challenges in institutional capacity. These superstructures have thereby helped avert
any major threat to state legitimacy and integrity, with the tacit implication that they will continue
to do so. Significantly, the essay contends that while the transitions from military to civilian rule
in 2008 and between civilian governments in 2013 may not have resulted in any qualitative shit
in the civil-military balance of power, these transitions did give impetus to certain sociopolitical
forces that offer a more positive outlook for Pakistan’s stability than the usual pessimistic scenario
posited by the country’s detractors. At the same time, Ahmad’s essay seems to implicitly recognize,
and accept, that political stability in Pakistan is still contingent on the support of the country’s
military-intelligence establishment.
While Ahmad’s optimism for the Pakistani state, despite this reality, appears to stem from
perceived changes in the mindset of Pakistan’s military high command, indicating a shit in
favor of stronger civilian rule at the center, C. Christine Fair’s assessment of the same institution
offers a much more dire analysis. She provides an insightful commentary on political violence in
Pakistan and highlights the intrinsic linkages between Pakistan’s internal and external security
environments. Importantly, the essay draws attention to the ideological motivations of the state, in
particular the security establishment, that drive its behavior and that will continue to derail any
6
NBR
SPECIAL REPORT u FEBRUARY 2016